Has the inbuilt eq moved position?

[Split]

@Shinta215

I see a few things:

1. That’s not a channel, that’s the main out. It still behaves the same (1-6 pre, 7-8 post. See test below).
2. That’s not a single audio track only project like my test called for.
3. The center value of that eq setting is beyond the range of the multiscope.
4. That EQ setting should get you nothing on the post EQ multiscopes.

Another test on the main out:
Details of test:
Single audio track project.
Audio track contains only a test generator set @ 440Hz sine wave.
All multiscopes placed on main mix output channel (no control room used).

Test shows (for the main out):
Inserts 1-6 pre eq.
Inserts 7-8 post eq.

As Split above and Sir Dancelot below say, something’s wrong.

Indeed!

Also interesting to note that your multiscopes results also differ with each other!

[Shinta215]

@Split

Also interesting to note that your multiscopes results differ with each other too!

I’m mainly looking at the peak.
I noticed the variances in the waveform myself but thought that they were tolerable (the computer is somewhat crappy and I’m running multiple plugins at once).

[Split]

@Shinta215

@Split

Also interesting to note that your multiscopes results differ with each other too!

I’m mainly looking at the peak.
I noticed the variances in the waveform myself but thought that they were tolerable.

Hmm… In a digital world one would expect no difference at all?

[Shinta215]

@Split

Hmm… In a digital world one would expect no difference at all?

When I look at the scopes, they all fluctuate around the same (timing wise).
There is a bit of delay between them.

Possibility of slight delay down the chain?

[Split]

Don’t see why that would make a difference!

[Shinta215]

@Split

Don’t see why that would make a difference!

Screenshot is one point in time.
It’ll capture any variances that the human eye is too slow to see (as the eye has persistence of vision).

[Split]

@Shinta215

@Split

Don’t see why that would make a difference!

Screenshot is one point in time.
It’ll capture any variances that the human eye is too slow to see (as the eye has persistence of vision).

Ah… I see, the frequency displays are dynamic then. are you using a sine wave?

Anyway it’s a mute point to the OPs original problem.

[Shinta215]

@Split

are you using a sine wave?

Yes. Set @ 440Hz

@Split

Anyway it’s a mute point to the OPs original problem.

True.

[stingray]

@Codsworth

You can see in this one that now the multiscope is in insert 4 it has changed dramatically.

Your screenshot does not show Insert 4. It is stil set to Insert 5. In addition, you do not show the test generator source in the screenshot. Are you using a square wave or a sine wave in the test generator? If you follow the following procedure precisely including points 2 and 4 and then post back here with a screenshot showing all the details, I am sure that the results will be identical to my results above:

1. Put the test generator in insert position 1 (set to square wave at -12dB, 440Hz)
2. Place the multiscope (set to Amplitude Analyser mode) in inserts 6, and 7.
3. Open the GUI set to ‘always on top’ for both multiscopes simultaneously.
4. Manipulate the eq for the track somewhere between 200Hz and 1k
5. Observe how the square wave remains unchanged in the multiscope in insert 6 and becomes distorted in the multiscope in insert 7

Kind regards,

[Shinta215]

@stingray

Are you using a square wave or a sine wave in the test generator?

I believe he’s using a sine wave. I got about the same result when I set my scopes to a lower band setting.

He’s got more problems than that.
He should be getting nothing post EQ until around 11,000 Hz with that EQ setting.

[stingray]

@Codsworth

Well I managed to finally get some screen shots.
You can see by this picture with your own eyes that even though in insert 5 it is showing EXACTLY the same reading

Yes, that proves that you can get exactly the same frequency spectrum for both with a sine wave and the flat EQ setting you have chosen, when shown in the frequency display. This does not prove that insert 5 and 7 are exactly the same. They have the same frequency spectrum but it does not prove that they do not have variations in level, since the multiscope auto compensates the level in frequency spectrum mode such that a sine wave would be displayed the same. (it’s easy to prove this just by changing the level of the source in the test generator. Changing the level produces no change in the display at all. This is effectively what you are doing when you change the EQ, you are changing the level but for a sine wave this will not register in the multiscope display in frequency spectrum display mode).

Now, to prove the point, do the same test but switch to the amplitude display instead. Or leave the settings exactly the same as you show in your screenshot and choose white noise in the test generator. This will immediately show a clear difference between inserts 5 and insert 7.

There is no change in the position of the EQ in the signal chain.

[stingray]

@Shinta215

@stingray

Are you using a square wave or a sine wave in the test generator?

I believe he’s using a sine wave. I got about the same result when I set my scopes to a lower band setting.

He’s got more problems than that.
He should be getting nothing post EQ until around 11,000 Hz with that EQ setting.

Hi Shinta,
A sine wave is probably not a good source for this test if you are looking at the frequency spectrum display in the multiscope since the display auto compensates the level. This is misleading since you might think you are seeing the same signal when you use a sine wave. You are not. It is the same spectrum but not the same amplitude. If you want to use the frequency spectrum display you can show meaningful results by choosing white noise as the source test signal.

[Shinta215]

@stingray

Hi Shinta,
A sine wave is probably not a good source for this test if you are looking at the frequency spectrum display in the multiscope since the display auto compensates the level. This is misleading since you might think you are seeing the same signal when you use a sine wave. You are not. It is the same spectrum but not the same amplitude. If you want to use the frequency display you can show meaningful results by choosing white noise as the source test signal.

Ah…

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Codsworth]

Right this is my final post on the matter.

Look at these screen shots to prove & show you what I meant all along.

As I said in the first post it could be a glitch & it obviously is.

Thanks for those who understood & gave positive feedback (you know who you are)

The other two shots will be in the next two posts.

Kind regards, Codsworth

[Codsworth]

[Codsworth]

[stingray]

@Codsworth

Right this is my final post on the matter.

Look at these screen shots to prove & show you what I meant all along.

As I said in the first post it could be a glitch & it obviously is.

Thanks for those who understood & gave positive feedback (you know who you are)

The other two shots will be in the next two posts.

Kind regards, Codsworth

What is the source signal you are using?

[stingray]

@Codsworth

What is the source signal? Please explain what this proves.

[stingray]

Hi Codsworth,
I am not convinced. I cannot reproduce your results. Please always show the source in the screenshot. Please try doing exactly the same test as the following:

1. Put the test generator in insert position 1 (set to square wave at -12dB, 440Hz)
2. Place the multiscope (set to Amplitude Analyser mode) in inserts 6, and 7.
3. Open the GUI set to ‘always on top’ for both multiscopes simultaneously.
4. Manipulate the eq for the track somewhere between 200Hz and 1k
5. Observe how the square wave remains unchanged in the multiscope in insert 6 and becomes distorted in the multiscope in insert 7

And then report back with a screenshot.
Kind regards,

[Codsworth]

Ok Stingray, Here goes!